Rebuttals: irreducible complexity

Refuting the fallacious criticism put forward against my recent video on irreducible complexity.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bogus criticism
• irreducible complexity
• evolution
• fallacious argument
• straw man
• misrepresentation
• time-wasting

[bluexepnos]

more like irrefutable complacency (bad at spelling)

[DonRico333]

@TChapman500 Listen to francis collins school you about irreducible complexity and how it is a stupid proposal that has already started to show cracks. your arguments are not thought out but repeated from generation to generation, and guess what, they are no longer valid because we know more and more.

[SANHEDRIN666]

@bluexepnos thats a good one...

[DaToNyOyO]

Jesus (and therefore god) wasn't real because we can't produce a video of Jesus or god performing miracles in real time.

Right back at you, creatards.

[Fantasticlist]

@LordYon13 Well, I'm quite sure of what I studied, what someone may point as a mistake is something that - probably - is refuted according to ideological thinking only. Anyway, if you want send me what you wrote in message, I stopped to discuss anything by several comments, it is boring and a mess.

[LordYon13]

@Fantasticlist I agree that that would have been better wrt readability, however this is a public forum. I'd be glad for any casual viewer to correct me if I'm mistaken at any point or if they disagree with my premise.

[Fantasticlist]

@MagnusNyborg Oh my Gandhi, always the same stories from you guys. I dont need to prove you my intellect. I made a LOT of studies and still do everyday. If you want to discuss deeply vision system evolution go ahead in private, start, giving me something. Otherwise, all we have is nothing because no one have science when claims that the vision system evolved. Go ahead or good luck on that faith.

[Fantasticlist]

@LordYon13 So if you need to write that all for me, send me a pvt message with all together.

[LordYon13]

@Fantasticlist +6 (last point)

This system can (and does) take thousands of years, over countless generations with swathes of individuals dying at each stage. The only reason you don't feel you need to study more is because learning more would question your own prejudicial beliefs.

[LordYon13]

@Fantasticlist +5

that random events, followed by non-random selection could have given rise to a proto-eye. At each point, dozens of organisms will have died or failed to reproduce due to deleterious mutations. The individuals with beneficial mutations can, and do, reproduce so their beneficial mutations are passed to their progeny, and if a deleterious mutation occurs there, the offspring die, if a beneficial one occurs then their offspring reproduce and pass it on.

[LordYon13]

@Fantasticlist +4

converse, leading to greater number of receptors at the cell surface that promote cell division. All of these events are random and would have occurred in almost every combination. Those which didn't aid the organism (e.g. didn't improve light perception) would have been either selected against, or "ignored" and the beneficial ones selected for, increasing their incidence. THIS is why I didn't go into detail. Those are the first 2 stages and the multitude of ways